No. Because an expanding gap between rich and poor means a corresponding contraction of the amount of money in circulation. The amount of money in circulation is directly correlated to the health of an economy. Ask any small business owner.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

No. Because an expanding gap between rich and poor means a corresponding contraction of the amount of money in circulation. The amount of money in circulation is directly correlated to the health of an economy. Ask any small business owner.

Demonstrate this is true.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

1) What, jimmac, did George Bush "do" to create the economic and other problems we have? You've never answered this. I assume you won't this time.

2) Why assume that anyone who isa Republican will take the exact same actions? This is partisanship in the extreme on your part.

Actually, I think you should do that. Really...that's the point. What should the government do?

I agree, but the question is as I poised. What should the government do?

You can't even be a real person.

Quote:

What, jimmac, did George Bush "do" to create the economic and other problems we have?

While this was brewing and people were even talking about it what did he do to avert it? He had 8 years for Christ's sake! Here at AI we were saying " There's no one at the wheel " meanwhile you were busy trying to tell everyone how great things were. We're living with the aftermath and have been for 4 years now. And listening to these jokers talk during their debates and speeches why would we want someone who obviously doesn't have much respect for a woman's rights, the rights of gays, or consider the poor or middleclass important? Why do we need another one of those SDW?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Which part? I'm asking you to make the case that Romney would be worse. I'll take your post as an admission that you cannot, or simply refuse to.

Be specific. Which things? Why don't those things work?

Who is they? If we're talking about the GOP frontrunner...we'd be a hell of a lot better off now.

You have no evidence....none...that things would be worse with someone other than Obama.

Quote:

You have no evidence....none...that things would be worse with someone other than Obama

Who was in there when this all blossomed SDW? Another Republican jackass. Just like the recent crop running for president. If we'd gotten say McCain/Palin the mind reels with how bad it would have been. Probably they would have followed the party line and there would have been several big corporations going under. This would have been followed by more jobs lost and a real depression ( not the relatively mild experience we've had ). I know you won't believe this because you are a dyed in the wool Republican and can't see anything else but it's the way things would have gone. Perhaps they would have seen things not doing so well ( maybe even feeling threatened by the reaction from the public ) and tried to reverse course but by then it would have been too late.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I don't know...I think that the Republicans would have done more bailouts but the narrative would have been different. I'm pretty sure the auto bailout is so unpopular among Republicans mainly because Obama was at the helm when it happened.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I don't know...I think that the Republicans would have done more bailouts but the narrative would have been different. I'm pretty sure the auto bailout is so unpopular among Republicans mainly because Obama was at the helm when it happened.

They claim to hate the bailouts. I think they would have been clueless. Just like Bush was cluless ( except at the last min. when he tried to do something ). I can just imagine McCain and Palin trying to fix things while also trying to follow what the party wanted them to do. At least Obama buffered things a bit.

I know, I know the GOP tells us they could have had things all better in no time. A problem of this magnitude? Horseshit. Probably they would have let GM go under. That would have flooded the job market with thousands more workers unemployed. Remember it's not just the factory workers it's all those little people who sell GM parts. You can work out the rest for yourself. A real depression not this " Things aren't great but at least we dodged the bullet " situation.

The problem with Obama is he should have put healthcare on the back burner until the economy was addressed. Focusing on it as he did wasted time and left him open for attack from the Republicans. He also should have ended those wars and brought the troops home as soon as possible. We can't be world policeman until we can afford it. And maybe nor should we. That probably should be for the " World " to do not just us. I'm thinking he would have never spent the kind of money Paul Krugman says would have been necessary to avert almost an entire decade of recovery ( which is what we have now mirroring what happened post The Great Depression ) so he decided to focus on healthcare and wait for things to gradually come back in time ( which is also where we are now most economists say 2014 ). I know people like MJ and SDW won't agree with this and I don't care. So far everything Krugman has predicted has come to pass.

But given the Republican's track record I can't imagine things being this good had Obama lost.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Why are these CEO's receiving millions of dollars in salary especially the banks in which this is not justifiable at all.The government should start to regulate these outlandish salaries instead of getting involved in women's personnel rights which they do not belong there.

The wealth gap is partly a result of greed and crime, amongst many other (mostly negative) factors.

The government is not the tool to address greed and its glorification in US society, and the prevalence of sociopaths in corporate boardrooms... that's a matter of personal ethics, integrity and common decency - ie the art of being civilized.

However, the government can address white collar crime. Unfortunately, it doesn't.... apart from a few well publicized cases. The US has a government that is run by corporations and banks, where criminals within that system can run largely free without fear of prosecution, or at worst - a slap on the proverbial wrist. Where there's a will, there's a way, but in the case of corporate and bankster serial criminality, there is zero will. Human nature is what it is....

Conservatives, the alleged champions of law and order, universally become mute, go into denial mode, and quickly change the subject when it comes down to addressing the crimes committed by the privileged..... or they even blow fuses and pretend it doesn't exist.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

The wealth gap is partly a result of greed and crime, amongst many other (mostly negative) factors.

The government is not the tool to address greed and its glorification in US society, and the prevalence of sociopaths in corporate boardrooms... that's a matter of personal ethics, integrity and common decency - ie the art of being civilized.

However, the government can address white collar crime. Unfortunately, it doesn't.... apart from a few well publicized cases. The US has a government that is run by corporations and banks, where criminals within that system can run largely free without fear of prosecution, or at worst - a slap on the proverbial wrist. Where there's a will, there's a way, but in the case of corporate and bankster serial criminality, there is zero will. Human nature is what it is....

Conservatives, the alleged champions of law and order, universally become mute, go into denial mode, and quickly change the subject when it comes down to addressing the crimes committed by the privileged..... or they even blow fuses and pretend it doesn't exist.

So, it seems, the government is doing a ton of shit it has no business doing (e.g., redistributing wealth, infringing on people's liberty, killing people, et al) and not doing enough of what it should be doing (e.g., protecting people's property rights.)

So, it seems, the government is doing a ton of shit it has no business doing (e.g., redistributing wealth, infringing on people's liberty, killing people, et al)

Looks like it.

1. "Redistributing of wealth" is synonymous with the wholesale and ongoing syphoning of money and resources from the middle class (and even the poor) to the very wealthiest. It is not happening the other way around.... the poor and middle classes are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer, and the trend keeps accelerating.

3. Killing people. Yes, millions of people, overseas. It's become the new national "blood sport".

Quote:

and not doing enough of what it should be doing (e.g., protecting people's property rights.)

Here's an irony: The ACLU is one of the right-wing's favorite target for bile and accusations of "supporting communism" () etc. However, one of the topics on their case load list involves protecting "private property rights".

Wild.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

1. "Redistributing of wealth" is synonymous with the wholesale and ongoing syphoning of money and resources from the middle class (and even the poor) to the very wealthiest. It is not happening the other way around.... the poor and middle classes are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer, and the trend keeps accelerating.

There's a lot going on in different directions actually. But I agree. The Fed is a key component of the redistribution you are referring to. But no one sees this.

And lots more small stuff like raiding raw food and raw milk sellers...the militarization of local police forces...and so on and so on. There's not much concern for the 2nd amendment or even acknowledgment of the 9th or 10th amendments.

There's a ton of shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

3. Killing people. Yes, millions of people, overseas. It's become the new national "blood sport".

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Here's an irony: The ACLU is one of the right-wing's favorite target for bile and accusations of "supporting communism" () etc. However, one of the topics on their case load list involves protecting "private property rights".

Wild.

Well, in fairness, ACLU is a bit mixed and muddled at times. One example is that they are wrong on the 2nd amendment. They tend to pick and chose rights a bit. There are other areas where they declare things to be "rights" that aren't necessarily "rights" but desires or wants.

There's a lot going on in different directions actually. But I agree. The Fed is a key component of the redistribution you are referring to. But no one sees this.

The Fed (IMHO) is a financial black hole. Even its "federal" title is deceptive and misleading, as it is no way a federal body in that its principle shareholders are a group of privately owned banks. The fact that its chair is nominated by the president doesn't even come into it.

Quote:

And lots more small stuff like raiding raw food and raw milk sellers...the militarization of local police forces...and so on and so on. There's not much concern for the 2nd amendment or even acknowledgment of the 9th or 10th amendments.

Agreed...the nanny government protecting big agribusiness is the culprit here. Same with the invasion of the US southern borders with working class folk from Mexico and other parts of Central America.... the ones who get on the butt end of Uncle Sam are those who toil in the fields for next to nothing, while those who employ them - often in conditions of indentured servitude - get away with it every time.

Quote:

Well, in fairness, ACLU is a bit mixed and muddled at times. One example is that they are wrong on the 2nd amendment. They tend to pick and chose rights a bit. There are other areas where they declare things to be "rights" that aren't necessarily "rights" but desires or wants.

The Bill of Rights: Use it, or lose it! That includes the 2nd Amendment.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

The Fed (IMHO) is a financial black hole. Even its "federal" title is deceptive and misleading, as it is no way a federal body in that its principle shareholders are a group of privately owned banks. The fact that its chair is nominated by the president doesn't even come into it.

The Fed is, simply put, a banking cartel and monetary monopoly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

The Bill of Rights: Use it, or lose it! That includes the 2nd Amendment.

You are the constitutional literalist. It's not reductio ad absurdum when your position is already at the absurdum. Is a nuke not an arm? How will you enforce this restriction? ...with...VIOLENCE?

I don't quite know what a "constitutional literalist" is nor why you think I am. I have no problem trying to make reasonable interpretations of what the intentions were.

That said, I have no problems with the use of force and violence (or threats of) when appropriate to protect the rights of life, liberty and property of people. That respect for and protection of everyone's basic rights of life, liberty and property is what I would consider an appropriate and acceptable "social contract." In short, I believe in a consistent application of the nonaggression principle.

In your hypothetical example of a private individual owning a nuclear weapon (there are no such real world examples of this that I'm aware...it only seems to be governments that have the desire and resources to obtain such weapons of mass destruction and murder)...the issue here would be the clear understanding that any owner of any weapon is also liable for the unjust damage and loss of life that comes from its use. This is pretty consistent with my overall view on these issues.

By unjust I mean this...if I own a gun (or a bomb) and shoot you or damage your property I'm liable for this and it would be unjust (and I can reasonably and morally be forced to make amends) insofar as I was not defending myself against any imminent and real threat you were presenting to my life and property.

Let's turn this around, do you propose that individual private citizens not be allowed to have any weapon of any kind for any reason?

The Second Amendment refers to 'arms'. It is not defined, but 'arms' at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights presumably referred to weapons that were commonly available on the arms market... for example a flintlock pistol, or a musket or a cannon. Do we still define 'arms' as referred to in the 2nd Amendment as what was available 200+ years ago? Obviously not... the range of weapons is 100s of times more varied, and powerful...but where do we draw the line as to what the citizens are entitled to bear and what is inappropriate? There's the tough question...

There are some absurdly abvious 'no-no's... such as IBCMs with thermonuclear warheads - any nuclear device for that matter - or other weapons of mass destruction. But how about anti-tank weapons? Or heat seeking missiles? Or RPGs? Military grade machine guns? Tazers?

The training introduction reads:
“Anti-terrorism (AT) and Force Protection (FP) are two facets of the Department of Defense (DoD) Mission Assurance Program. It is DoD policy, as found in DoD I 2000.16, that the DoD Components and the DoD elements and personnel shall be protected from terrorist acts through a high priority, comprehensive, AT program. The DoD’s AT program shall be all encompassing using an integrated systems approach.”

The first question of the Terrorism Threat Factors, “Knowledge Check 1″ section reads:
Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?

In order to proceed, users must give the “correct” answer as “Protests”.

According to the document, all DoD personnel are required to complete the course on a yearly basis.

And in the UK as well.... Occupy London demonstrators have been listed as domestic terrorists by the City of London Police, who characterized them in the same context as Al-Qaeda, the Colombian FARC and Belarusian terrorists who bombed the Minsk underground.

Does the availability of powerful firearms in the US make it a safer place compared to the rest of the world, or a more dangerous place?

Guns deprive tens of thousands of people across the nation of their life, liberty, and property each year. There is no parallel in places where gun ownership is controlled. Obviously those places are statistically safer.

If in terms of arms availability you were honestly concerned about life, liberty and property, you would seek the solution that protects those most effectively. If you do not seek that solution, you are a liar with regard to your motivations.

Another Republican jackass. Just like the recent crop running for president. If we'd gotten say McCain/Palin the mind reels with how bad it would have been.

It's merely an academic point, because we'll never know. That said, you've provided no support (as usual) for your statement. What specific policies would have made things worse than they are now?

Quote:

Probably they would have followed the party line

Yes, completely unlike the Democratic side....right? Right?

Quote:

and there would have been several big corporations going under.

Demonstrate this. Also, several big corporations DID go under. We just spent tens of billions bailing them out before letting them go through bankruptcy, which is what she should have done to begin with.

Quote:

This would have been followed by more jobs lost and a real depression ( not the relatively mild experience we've had ).

Relatively mild experience? Are you kidding? In Obama's own words, it was the "worst economy since the Great Depression." Now it's mild? Obama himself also said that the reason the economy is not strong now is that they "underestimated how bad it was." So, which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Quote:

I know you won't believe this because you are a dyed in the wool Republican and can't see anything else but it's the way things would have gone. Perhaps they would have seen things not doing so well ( maybe even feeling threatened by the reaction from the public ) and tried to reverse course but by then it would have been too late.

I'm not a "dyed in the wool Republican." I am conservative on most issues, libertarian on others. I am registered as a Republican so I can vote in my state's closed primary. In fact, I was a registered independent for several years. Beyond that, you still have offered nothing but a "sorry, that's the way it would have gone" to support your position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

They claim to hate the bailouts. I think they would have been clueless. Just like Bush was cluless ( except at the last min. when he tried to do something ). I can just imagine McCain and Palin trying to fix things while also trying to follow what the party wanted them to do. At least Obama buffered things a bit.

More meaningless crap. "Buffered things?" Does that mean "on a mission to destroy the U.S. economy?

Quote:

I know, I know the GOP tells us they could have had things all better in no time.

Of course they do. Both parties say that all the time. It's called politics.

Quote:

A problem of this magnitude? Horseshit. Probably they would have let GM go under. That would have flooded the job market with thousands more workers unemployed. Remember it's not just the factory workers it's all those little people who sell GM parts. You can work out the rest for yourself. A real depression not this " Things aren't great but at least we dodged the bullet " situation.

You clearly have no understanding of the bankruptcy process. G.M. should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy. This does not mean tens of thousands of unemployed. This does not mean G.M. goes out of business. It means following the bankruptcy and restructuring process under Chapter 11. And what did we do instead? We gave them $50 BILLION dollars and THEN let them go bankrupt anyway! The government bought the company, and screwed all the secured bond holders in favor of paying the UNSECURED bond holders (the union). Really, it's hard to imagine a more disastrous and immoral outcome. The UAW now owns G.M.--the very people that bankrupted the company to begin with.

Quote:

The problem with Obama is he should have put healthcare on the back burner until the economy was addressed.

We agree there.

Quote:

Focusing on it as he did wasted time and left him open for attack from the Republicans.

Of course it did, because he was WRONG.

Quote:

He also should have ended those wars and brought the troops home as soon as possible. We can't be world policeman until we can afford it. And maybe nor should we.

Why? Because we were tired? We disagree.

Quote:

That probably should be for the " World " to do not just us. I'm thinking he would have never spent the kind of money Paul Krugman says would have been necessary to avert almost an entire decade of recovery ( which is what we have now mirroring what happened post The Great Depression ) so he decided to focus on healthcare and wait for things to gradually come back in time ( which is also where we are now most economists say 2014 ). I know people like MJ and SDW won't agree with this and I don't care. So far everything Krugman has predicted has come to pass.

Krugman is one of the idiots out there arguing that the stimulus needed to be at least twice as large.

Quote:

But given the Republican's track record I can't imagine things being this good had Obama lost.

"Things" are a disaster right now. What has Obama accomplished? He pushed through a trillion dollar takeover of healthcare that the American people oppose and that will kill private insurance within a few years. He failed to work out an agreement with the Iraqis to leave American security forces behind. He started a war in Libya. He's emboldened Iran. He's enraged Pakistan. He's spent money literally twice as fast as Bush did. He's trampled the rights of Catholics. We've amassed over $5 Trillion in debt in just three years. The deficit is 4 times higher than Bush's worse. Unemployment is close to 9% officially, and real unemployment is at least 11%. Two million fewer Americans are working today than they were when Obama was sworn in. He's ignored military leaders and made politically motivated troop level decisions in Afghanistan. Last year's budget proposal was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. Federal workers' pay is up, the private sector's is down. Gas is twice as much as it was when he took office.

Tell me how "good" things are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

The wealth gap is partly a result of greed and crime, amongst many other (mostly negative) factors.

The government is not the tool to address greed and its glorification in US society, and the prevalence of sociopaths in corporate boardrooms... that's a matter of personal ethics, integrity and common decency - ie the art of being civilized.

However, the government can address white collar crime. Unfortunately, it doesn't.... apart from a few well publicized cases. The US has a government that is run by corporations and banks, where criminals within that system can run largely free without fear of prosecution, or at worst - a slap on the proverbial wrist. Where there's a will, there's a way, but in the case of corporate and bankster serial criminality, there is zero will. Human nature is what it is....

Conservatives, the alleged champions of law and order, universally become mute, go into denial mode, and quickly change the subject when it comes down to addressing the crimes committed by the privileged..... or they even blow fuses and pretend it doesn't exist.

Do you honestly believe that the wealth gap is all about greed and law enforcement?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It's merely an academic point, because we'll never know. That said, you've provided no support (as usual) for your statement. What specific policies would have made things worse than they are now?

Yes, completely unlike the Democratic side....right? Right?

Demonstrate this. Also, several big corporations DID go under. We just spent tens of billions bailing them out before letting them go through bankruptcy, which is what she should have done to begin with.

Relatively mild experience? Are you kidding? In Obama's own words, it was the "worst economy since the Great Depression." Now it's mild? Obama himself also said that the reason the economy is not strong now is that they "underestimated how bad it was." So, which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I'm not a "dyed in the wool Republican." I am conservative on most issues, libertarian on others. I am registered as a Republican so I can vote in my state's closed primary. In fact, I was a registered independent for several years. Beyond that, you still have offered nothing but a "sorry, that's the way it would have gone" to support your position.

More meaningless crap. "Buffered things?" Does that mean "on a mission to destroy the U.S. economy?

Of course they do. Both parties say that all the time. It's called politics.

You clearly have no understanding of the bankruptcy process. G.M. should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy. This does not mean tens of thousands of unemployed. This does not mean G.M. goes out of business. It means following the bankruptcy and restructuring process under Chapter 11. And what did we do instead? We gave them $50 BILLION dollars and THEN let them go bankrupt anyway! The government bought the company, and screwed all the secured bond holders in favor of paying the UNSECURED bond holders (the union). Really, it's hard to imagine a more disastrous and immoral outcome. The UAW now owns G.M.--the very people that bankrupted the company to begin with.

We agree there.

Of course it did, because he was WRONG.

Why? Because we were tired? We disagree.

Krugman is one of the idiots out there arguing that the stimulus needed to be at least twice as large.

"Things" are a disaster right now. What has Obama accomplished? He pushed through a trillion dollar takeover of healthcare that the American people oppose and that will kill private insurance within a few years. He failed to work out an agreement with the Iraqis to leave American security forces behind. He started a war in Libya. He's emboldened Iran. He's enraged Pakistan. He's spent money literally twice as fast as Bush did. He's trampled the rights of Catholics. We've amassed over $5 Trillion in debt in just three years. The deficit is 4 times higher than Bush's worse. Unemployment is close to 9% officially, and real unemployment is at least 11%. Two million fewer Americans are working today than they were when Obama was sworn in. He's ignored military leaders and made politically motivated troop level decisions in Afghanistan. Last year's budget proposal was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. Federal workers' pay is up, the private sector's is down. Gas is twice as much as it was when he took office.

Tell me how "good" things are.

Do you honestly believe that the wealth gap is all about greed and law enforcement?

Mostly greed. The rest of your post is absurd and not in accordance with reality like usual. But given you love those Republicans ( like Rush ) you're in...... cough......good company.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

The 99% are the true job creators. When they have money to spend, they spend it. The sheer aggregate of their paltry disposable incomes increases demand for products and services leading to more hiring and more demand. The economy has recovered for wall street. Corporate profits are back up. Why is there no hiring? Not enough demand. Why isn't there enough demand? 93% of salary increases went to the 1%.

Throw a bone to the job creators. The real ones.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

About the last two posts. Isn't funny how so many of us can see the true nature of the problem but it still goes on and on and on.............

Kind of sad really. But you guys are right. I don't think the rich want top give up even a few pennys that they earned at the expense of their poorer counter parts. And that trickle down nonsense never worked. If it had we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination